Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 10-17 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 and claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and in view of Vinson (US 20160068784 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Di Bono discloses a detergent dispensing cartridge for use in a washing machine (see Abstract). Di Bono further discloses the cartridge has multiple compartments: first compartment which holds a first detergent formulation and a second compartment which holds a second detergent formulation (see Abstract). Di Bono further discloses the detergent compositions may comprise anionic and non-ionic surfactants (see page 17 paragraph 1).
However, Di Bono is silent as to the surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant at 15-25wt% and a nonionic surfactant system comprising C12-C15 alkyl ethoxylated alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation of from 1 to 10 at 10-20wt%.
Vinson discloses detergent compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Vinson further discloses 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates, particularly those commercially available under ISALCHEM, as suitable 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates (see [0003]). Vinson further teaches branched surfactants as effective under cold water washing conditions (see [0003]). The instant specifications list alkyl sulfates commercially available under ISALCHEM as suitable. Vinson further discloses anionic surfactants at 1-75wt% (see [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates at 1-75wt%, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition, as disclosed by Di Bono, in order to prepare a detergent composition which is effective under cold water washing conditions.
Vinson further discloses any conventional nonionic surfactant may be used (see [0127]). Vinson further teaches ethoxylated nonionic surfactants with may be selected from ethoxylated alcohols having 8-15 carbon atoms and an average degree of ethoxylation of about 9 (see [0127]). Vinson further discloses nonionic surfactants at 0.1-40wt% (see [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition of Di Bono as such nonionic surfactants are conventional in the art of detergents, as disclosed by Vinson.
With regard to claim 9, Di Bono discloses chelating agents at 1-6wt% (see page 27 paragraph 4).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of Attar (WO 2021130707 A1).
With regard to claim 2 and claim 3, Di Bono and Vinson disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the first sub-container comprising a first outlet, the second container comprising a second outlet, and said outlets spaced apart. Further, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the first and second outlets oriented in the same direction.
Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising an outer housing, a pumping portion, and an internal peristaltic pump and rotational drive that are operable to deliver chemistry from the flexible container to an outlet port defined within the pump housing and the outlet ports are oriented in the same direction (see [0003], Figure 5). The device further comprises an internal valve outlet that is biased toward a closed position ( see [00113], Figure 8 number 212). The pump contained within the outlet functions to selectively deliver a laundry chemistry (see [0003]). Attar further discloses multiple cartridges oriented in the same direction with for operating multiple pump assemblies (see [0060] and [0067], Figure 54 and Figure 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the outlet valve, as taught by Attar, for the purpose of selectively delivering the laundry chemistry, as taught by Di Bono and Vinson.
With regard to claim 4 and claim 5, Di Bono and Vinson disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson fail to disclose a collapsible bag.
Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising a flexible container which collapses as it empties after multiple dosed amounts of laundry chemistry are dispensed (see [00247]). Attar further discloses the flexible container selectively holds a laundry chemistry (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the flexible container as taught by Attar in the multiple compartments as taught by Di Bono and Vinson to selectively hold a laundry chemistry.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Depa (CN 10615667 A).
With regard to claim 6, Di Bono and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to 0.5-2wt% of a first amine oxide and 1-3wt% of a second amine oxide.
Depa discloses a cleaning composition, preferably laundry detergents, an analogous art, comprising well known surfactants, in particular amphoteric surfactants, of which amine oxides are disclosed as preferred amphoteric surfactants from about 0.2wt% to about 10wt% (see [0151]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the amine oxides as taught by Depa in the first and second laundry detergent compositions as disclosed by Di Bono and Vinson, as amine oxides are well known in the art as suitable amphoteric surfactants, as taught by Depa and Di Bono discloses amphoteric surfactants may be used (see page 17 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 7, Di Bono and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the second anionic surfactant system and the second amine oxide system provided at a ratio of said second nonionic surfactant system and said second amine oxide system from 3.3 to 20.
With respect to the ratio of second nonionic surfactant system to second amine oxide system of 3.3 to 20 considering that Bolton teaches a second nonionic surfactant system in the range of 1-30 wt% as disclosed in [Abstract] and Depa teaches an amine oxide system in the range of 0.2-10wt% as disclosed in [0151-0153], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 10wt% of nonionic surfactant: 3.03wt% amine oxide system or 3.3:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 8, Di Bono discloses chelating agents at 1-6wt% (see page 27 paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Brueckner fails to disclose “a laundry treatment cartridge having only 2 sub-containers within said cartridge”. As Brueckner is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Brueckner are moot. Further, as stated above, Di Bono discloses a detergent dispensing cartridge for use in a washing machine (see Abstract). Di Bono further discloses the cartridge has multiple compartments: first compartment which holds a first detergent formulation and a second compartment which holds a second detergent formulation (see Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights